Posts made by MarineIguana

At the risk of sounding patronizing, the usual way to win is to consistently win battles at a profit. You do this by attacking enemy units that are out of position, and avoiding placing units in a deadzone yourself.

Lets start with the clear case where 10 tanks are attacking 2 tanks in a 2IPC territory.
The tanks will almost certainly kill 10 IPC (2 tanks) + 2 territories - 2 (33% chance of losing a tank) for a net 10 profit.
The 2 tanks are in a dead zone and should have been retreated by the other player.

Among good players, often you will see two big opposing stacks and 1-2 infantry on the buffer territories that are traded back and forth. This is because if either player advances their stack, it’s likely in a deadzone (because this extends the attacker’s supply line distance and reduces the defender’s. also fighters can’t land on a territory taken the same turn). So, each player attacks the border territories with just enough fighters and infantry to take the territory with 1 inf left to gain the IPC from the territory. This happens until one stack gets strong enough that it can advance forward safely. IF the advancing stack placed the defending stack in a deadzone, the defending stack must retreat.

In general, it’s better to retreat units instead of leaving 1 infantry to die in a dead zone. However, you also can’t be too passive and retreat your stack to the capital. The optimal positioning usually involves big stacks 1 territory from the traded territories to put maximum influence on the traded territories and prevent the advancing opponent from moving forward safely.

My personal view is that Uk’s R1 buy should be 2 fig, 2 inf, 1 art. Place 3 land in india and 2 fig in UK that goes -> Wrus R2 -> India R3.
This purchase maximizes the india defense.

This purchase is generally irrespective of Germany’s R1 moves, unless Germany plays very sub optimally and doesn’t sink UK’s atlantic fleet. I do not believe UK can both purchase land units in India and buy enough naval to make a naval stack off UK R1. The 2 fighter buys serve a dual purpose of either supporting India or creating a UK navy stack R2.

An IC in Egypt can work assuming the opponent is bad. I’m not even sure I would take an IC in Egypt if it were free.
An IC in Egypt doesn’t accomplish much, forces allies to defend it, and costs 15 IPC that could be better spent.

The benefit is marginal. Germany already has a difficult time taking Egypt & Africa without additional naval buys. Often, UK can kill the battleship and transport R1 unless Germany makes a buy. It’s also not fantastic for supporting India since Egypt is only two production and a number of spaces from India. UK can make better use by spending 15 IPC towards 2 fighters.

The risk is great. Germany can threaten Egypt with just 1 carrier buy. Even if Germany never attacks Egypt directly, defending Egypt will divert units from defending India. Japan can easily place naval off FIC. This threat would force UK to defend both India and Egypt. Additionally, the sz off FIC is a great position for Japan to defend even if US commits to the Pacific (KJF).

The poll is outdated.

My best guess is that a bid of 10-11 to allies is appropriate. Compared to revised, germany feels significantly less pressure from the UK and US due to more atlantic navy destroyed R1 and increased travel distance from US. Germany is expected to be able to stack Karelia by R3-5 if both players play optimally. If germany producing from karelia greatly increases the Russia pressure.

Russia needs a bid to contest Karelia more effectively.

12 is probably too large because it allows a bid of two UK subs to very profitably sink the japan fleet of east indies.

Ideal bids any combination of:
infantry/art for rus
uk sub in med
egypt uk inf
maybe uk sub off india

Yes

I don’t think so. The purpose of the IC is to prevent Germany from taking Africa. You can achieve the same effect by destroying the german med navy.

Allies have many ways to accomplish this even without investing significant purchases for Africa. A R1 bomber purchase is overall better if you want to ensure the med fleet goes down R2.

I’m pretty confident that 2 fig, 2 inf, 1 art is the best R1 buy for UK though. This maximizes the India defense in the subsequent rounds.

The Pacific route may like an attractive path, but in practice, it take much more naval investment to protect the transports.

Typical air and naval:
Germany - 5 fighters, 1 bomber. 1 fighter is usually lost in ukraine and baltic fleet is sunk by uk
Japan - 2 battleships, 2 carriers, 5-6 fighters, 1 bomber, 1 destroyer, maybe 1 sub, + any transports japan bought.

Japan starts with a much larger naval threat, and US would need to invest 50-150 IPC for a US pacific fleet to survive.

Also, the Atlantic route is shorter than you’re describing.
The typical starting route is for land units purchased in East US to move to east Canada. From there, a transport can move it to Algeria each turn. From there, transports can threaten South Europe or West Europe. US also has the option of placing a fleet in the Mediterranean Sea. That fleet can transport from Libya to Ukraine, Caucasus, trans jordan, Southern Europe, and Western Europe. A US1 buy of 1 carrier, 1 transport, and land units is a great start to accomplish this.

@jaco3121:

I took Borneo on UK1, then placed my AC, with fighter, and my CB and transport around Borneo, with the 2 soldiers defending it. Japan decided not to attack, and instead focus on pearl harbor, on the American turn, he sent over a fighter, and bought 4 SS and a CL to attack japans navy with. On Uk2 i placed the IC and on J2 Japan sent his fleet to deal with the americans, and took hawaii with his transports. During this whole ordeal, he places a IC in french indo china, and bought a CV and i think a fighter too.

Let me get this right… The Japan player ignored a 4 IPC territory, threatening many important japan territories, and where he could take with overwhelming force. Then, the allies sweeten the deal by practically gifting a factory on that territory. Lastly, the US continues in round 2 to attack Hawaii, a fairly unimportant 1IPC territory that’s in the US sphere of influence. Borneo is completely ignored during the whole time.

I heard it’s possible for japan to end the game in 3 rounds. Here’s how it works:
R1: Japan moves the entire fleet to alaska. Assume the united states only buys antiaircraft guns, evacuates all units from WUS and EUS into mexico.
R2: japan takes WUS unopposed. US continues buying all AA guns.
R3: tank blitz to take EUS. With US capital taken, allies will fold.

I can invent any kind of strategy if you assume bad play from the opponent. The only problem with these strategies is if the opponent is good.

A hallmark of a good strategy is one that can win consistently assuming the opponent plays the optimal counterplay.

@jaco3121:

Thoughts on building a IC on Borneo, playing as British?

I know it works with me, but it requires some luck to start off. and if you fail on the first turn, your navy is screwed.

It also requires your opponent to be terrible.

Even under a perfect UK 1 scenario, japan can crush uk and take borno R2 for a free IC.
Japan starts with roughly a 2 battleship 1 carrier, 5 fighter advantage over UK in a good position. UK fleet is split in a bad position. A UK borneo IC can’t be built until round 2 and is a gift to Japan.

1. I do not directly want to avoit 50/50 battles, but i do want to avoid musthaves.
The chance to sink 2 US transports and a destroyer is too tempting not to do it. You can only lose one sub if you fail. Therefore, to maximize axis chances to win, moving this sz8 sub to sz10 is inevitable.
I dont like having only one way. Before, this sub could do various moves, depending on what you do in med and in north atlantic. But with transports not being able to defend, this 8-10 move is he best you can do, independent of how you want to attack the british ships. I think it is the best option to simply move the starting position of the sub from 8 to 7, here it is still possible to help attacking british ships in 2 or 13. You simply lose this (too profitalbe) US attack (that was anyway impossible in revised).

In The sz8 sub only has one optimal move in standard revised. That’s to hit the med. Attacking the uk sub is only a 75% chance and is guaranteed sunk by US R1. Med takes a (66% chance) hit from the battleship that would otherwise be a german fighter loss.

Russia hitting Wrus, Japan hitting pearl, Germany hitting egypt. These are all very profitable “must have” attacks. Yet, the game is still fairly balanced on the net.

I think what you want to avoid in R1 are high volatility plays that have a big impact. For example, hypothetical 2 bombers attacking 4 transports defending at 1 would add a large amount of random luck.

B) Im not sure how this should (auto)happen, as G can act before UK, and has various options in the med. Dont see such a big problem here. Maybe I’m not experienced enough to see that, could you explain it more detailed? I think with fighters, bomber and the battleship (and even the sz8 sub) it is possible to crash both, the UK battleship AND destroyer in the med, and therefore saving the german med fleet (at least for a while). Sure, you cant use those air units at the east front or in the north atlantic, BUT you have the option.

The normal optimal play on both sides is germany sends atlantic sub and 3 fighters to sink the sz13 battleship. 1 battleship, 1 fig, and 1 transport go to sz15 and sink the destroyer. 4 land units (+1-2 if germany bids to africa), 1 bomber attack egypt. This makes sz15 guaranteed safe R1.

C) Sure this transport is an autoloss for J if UK attacks it with a fighter form sz or the destroyer from sz 35. BUT if UK does so, the carrier and/or the destroyer is a (nearly) autoloss afterwards. This is not a very profitable move I think. You CAN do it to slow down Japans land offensive, but it costs UK more than J. UK has other useful options in the indian ocean. I dont see a general problem here. Maybe im wrong here, and the other options are crap, but me as UK-player would more like to save the indian fleet in the fist round, trying to meld it with either survivors from the med or with the australian.

The sz59 battle, along with egypt R1 are the most important battles R1 in my view. 1 Dest vs trans only has about an 85% chance of destroying the transport. It’s so important that many top players send both the dest and carrier to sink the transport. If Japan starts with both transports, Japan’s opening is accelerated by ~1 round and that makes it much easier for Japan to secure India, Persia, and Egypt.

Honestly (and sincerely don’t mean to insult), your comments suggest to me that you are not playing at a high competitive level. Against typical players, the skill level will have a much larger impact than a few bid. This is because people will mistakenly leave units in a position for the opponent to win 10-50 point battles. Bids to balance really shine when both players are playing optimally, the games are going 20+ rounds with 150 unit stacks. I would stick to my suggestions in the original post if you’d like to try revised with the new rules.

I have played a few hundred games of revised, many at a high level. Here’s my perspective.

I personally love the changes to subs and transports, but I agree that it really affects balance.
Subs are great because they can be sneaky rather than getting blown out by air in the first round. Also makes destroyer buys necessary.
Transports is great because they were strong enough on defense not to need many naval purchases. A stack of 4-8 transports with 1 carrier + 2 fighters defends too well (in my opinion).
Tanks are pretty neutral to both sides actually. All countries usually purchase tanks.

Reading your post, it appears that your guiding principles are:
1. avoid starting 50/50 battles that greatly increase the impact of luck
2. make the sides closely balanced that skill determines who wins.
3. (implicit) that the game should feel similar to revised

The biggest starting impacts are to:
A. US east coast fleet is now profitable to attack
B. Germany med fleet is weak and can be sunk R1 and almost certainly by R2
C. SZ59 transport is auto sunk by a destroyer or fighter

To apply the new rules, and maintain the revised feel I suggest:
1. Add a destroyer to US east
2. Add a destroyer to germany med
3. Add a destroyer to sz59
4. A bid of 3-8 to axis is probably still appropriate.

Allies committing to the pacific is at a disadvantage. Simply put, the allies have a harder time putting pressure on Japan compared to Germany with equivalent resources. That said, a skilled A&A player can easily overcome this disadvantage and win with KJF.

–-Japan—
If the US is committing to US pacific naval purchases, it is essential for Japan to delay the US advance by deadzoning the naval territories the US would advance into. I can say with confidence that played perfectly on both sides, Japan can consistently prevent the US from stacking FIC, Borneo, East Indies, or Phillipines for at least 7 rounds.

Assuming typical round 1 battles and 3 transport purchase, at the start of US1:
Japan: 2 carriers, 2 battleships, 1 destroyer, 0/1 subs, 5-6 fighters, 1 bomber, 3 transports
US: 1 battleship, 2 destroyers, 3 transports, 3 fighters, 1 bomber

This is about a 70 point deficit that US has to overcome. Additionally, the defender of the pressure has a big advantage in deadzoning because it can use land based fighters to attack, while the advancing pressuring units need carriers to defend with fighters.

• Always buy 3 transports/2inf round 1. never buy factories. Transports can be used in subsequent naval battles and are all around more flexible.
• Round 2 and after, buy a combination of fighters and subs. Subs are the most cost effective in naval battles. Fighters are somewhat less powerful but can attack land and have range of 4. Typical purchases are 5-6 infantry and 2 subs/fighters. Don’t buy a factory unless you are comfortably holding the US off and only place in India.
• Critical! Place your naval and air units in a way that can deadzone (i.e. counter) US movements forward. Initially focus on deadzoning hawaii and solomon islands. If/when US accumulates enough to move into those, deadzone phillipines, borneo, and east indies.
• Japan can move into asia easily by landing those 5-6 infantry a turn and trading effectively with air. The key is to use your air advantage in making efficient trades and not losing stacks of units.
• A neat trick for deadzoning is to place 2 fighters on each carrier and 2 more fighters 4 spaces away. If the US moves within 2 territories of the carrier, you can attack with all 4 fighters with the two on the carrier landing on a japan controlled island.

–-Germany—
Germany will have much less pressure without US. With good Japan play, Japan can defend itself for a long time.

• keep purchasing conservatively almost all infantry with 1-2 tanks a round. Purchases of 12-16 units a turn will force the allies off of west russia/cauc and eventually you can take moscow. If you play Japan right, resist the urge to make large tank purchases.
• retain africa. it’s quite possible for germany to hold egypt indefinitely. attack egypt round 1 and continue reinforcing 2 units a round. focus on defending the territory, trading minimally, and stationing fighters where necessary.

—Salta—

If the Axis takes Moscow and Allies take Berlin, the Allies are 95+% likely to win barring major misplays. This is because the net income gain from Berlin, Weur, Seur, EEur is 25 alone and easy to defend by holding EEur. Net gain from Moscow, Cauc, WRus, is 14 and defended by holding WRus.

This comes from experience playing a lot of games (300+). It’s a little hard to understand how Moscow/Berlin trading works without playing it. It’s actually possible for allies to win even after giving up Moscow first. Allies can win if they take Berlin in 1-2 turns after moscow falls and before Japan’s tanks can come to Berlin’s aid.

Overall, Africa is a nice source of income and can be contested by both sides. However, there are many more important contested areas such as persia/caucasus, ukr/belo/kar, and WEur. Africa is worth 11IPC if i recall correctly.

It’s optimal for Japan to contest the areas that it is logistically easy to influence. It’s normal for Japan to contest part of Africa after about round 5 once it moves into the indian ocean. Madagascar is under axis control and Egypt + other africa countries bordering the Indian ocean are contested. West African territories are harder to contest. South Africa favors Allies since UK starts with 1 inf there, but any side can potentially take it. It’s really out of the way though.

If the US fleet was sunk, that was a serious mistake by the US player and shouldn’t happen. I prefer playing strategies that assume the other player is good, rather than counting on opponent mistakes to win.

I only have time for a short answer.

Allies should always seek to pressure Germany and largely ignore Japan. This is because all allied countries are closer to Germany then Japan, so can always put more pressure on Germany.

Russia:
Strategy - Russia should seek to make small trades with germany to maintain income. Russia should try to stay strong and avoid large trades with Germany and Japan.

Tactics - :1. Hold west Russia and trade ukr and belo with germany. 2. Use tanks to deadzone persia, kazakh, and novo from Japan.

UK:
Strategy - UK should seek to trade with Germany as much as possible. A force like 1 carrier, 2-4 fighters, 4 transports, and 8 land units is ideal for trading territories such as norway, arch, east germany, and west europe.

Tactics - Your moves sound largely appropriate. it’s critical to send the destroyer to sink the transport in sz59. This greatly slows the Japan advance on russia.

USA:
Strategy - US, with the greatest income, is the country that destroys Germany. Its first responsibility is to remove the axis from africa, then threaten to make large landings on south europe. Ignore pressuring Japan or North Europe.

Tactics - US should devote as much income as possible to buying trans/inf/tank. Typically buying 1 transport a turn is most efficient from a logistics perspective. US should evacuate all units from the Pacific to the Atlantic. UK can pressure Germany from the north (Weur, EEur, norway, karelia) while US can pressure Germany from the south (Weur, Italy, balkans, Ukraine).

Overall, it’s very important for allies to prevent Japan fleet from moving into the med and to sink the Germany med fleet. If you analyze very carefully, you can see that UK can threaten to sink the germany med fleet round 2 (2 fig, 1 bomber). And either US (2 fig, 1 bomber) or UK (3-4fig, 1 bomber) can almost certainly sink the med fleet by round 3. The starting UK units around Persia are important for preventing Japan fleet from going into the med round 3.

@Zombie69:

I like your NAs in general but I have a few comments and questions:

• U-boat Interdiction is too powerful with 6-IPC subs if you allow it to take away both British and American cash just by sitting near India. Forcing them to be in the Atlantic would at least allow the Allies to go after them, while making more sense historically.

GG, allies have zero chance. Germany just buys 6 subs R1 and that with the starting 4 subs = -10 UK R1 income. R2 another buy of 7 subs results in -17 income a turn and allies having to overcome a stack of 17 subs and fighters. The damage/cost ratios are even better than the bomber, AND you can use it to deadzone UK and US in the atlantic.

All these rules add a lot of complexity and are difficult to balance.

If you want balance -> apply a bid
If you want interesting -> Reduce production costs to zero, and/or remove production limits if you’re feeling extra adventurous. Infinite vs infinite unit battles… now that’s interesting!

@seawolf:

You mean you never needed a bid to win?

I never won a game as allies without a bid  :|

I would probably win 80+% of the games as axis if I were to hypothetically play both sides. It’s not that it’s impossible for Allies to win with no bid, but that it’s not balanced. The weaker player could win because of the game setup. The consensus among good players if that this map favors Axis.

With optimal play from both sides, Germany is very strong. It’s expected that the US and UK naval fleets are destroyed R1 and can’t assert Atlantic dominance until R4. Germany can typically stack karelia R3 and start pressuring Russia heavily by producing 12-13 units a turn compared to Russia producing 6-7. Without early UK and US pressure, Germany can direct those units to stack karelia/ukraine R3-4 and Wrussia/Cauc by R6-10. This provides enough of an income advantage for Axis to win eventually. This is the expected outcome from best play by both sides. A bid of 8-11 strengthens Russia and UK allowing more counter-play.

To be clear, there’s plenty of opportunity to outplay opponents. What guni-kid describes are some standard Allied tactics that are close to optimal play. The problem is that with optimal play by both sides, axis wins more often than not with no bid.

I’ve played about 30-40 games, and won against some other pretty experienced players. Axis is favored on this map. My personal view is that a bid of around 7-11 is fair among experienced players. This is a newer game, so it’s not surprising that people haven’t come up with an exact amount.

Among beginning players, this bid probably needs to be bigger because players don’t recognize deadzones and leave pieces in the open. Germany has many more offensive pieces than Russia, and Moscow is at serious risk of falling early if Russia loses a stack. This is less true if Germany loses a stack because 1. germany starts with more pieces (compared to Russia), and 2. UK and US aren’t a threat until round 4.

There’s already great threads on bid placement to have the most impact. I won’t go into depth, but inf in cauc, karelia, egypt ; uk sub off egypt or india are likely have the most impact per IPC bid. Among beginning players, I would probably give uk 1 inf in egypt and ~6 infantry for russia in moscow. That’s my suggestion for a dynamic game among beginners of approximate skill.

I feel that the posts above covers the general view among experienced players about the viability of KJF and some specific tactics on both sides. The debate between Roc, Zom, and me in the last few points are what I consider advanced discussion about fully optimizing the strategy.
–-----------------------
Summary:
To boil it down, KJF is when the allies seek to “Kill Japan First” by pressuring Japan through purchases, taking territory, and battles. KJF can work, but it’s not as consistent or effective as KGF. This is because all 3 allied countries can apply more pressure to Germany earlier than they can for Japan. This is especially true against good players.

Against KJF, the Japan player should purchase mostly subs, fighters, and infantry and seek to keep the navy alive off China. US should buy mostly carriers and subs. UK should buy 3 land in India and 2 fighters in UK that fly UK->West Russia->India. The allies should seek to create a big naval stack that can move to Borneo/East Indies/Philippines.

Advanced discussion:

subs vs fighters:
Zom you’re right that I overstated how much better fighters are vs subs in my initial post (I oversimplified). Subs and fighters are ideal purchases for Japan. Subs provide the best raw naval attack and defense. Fighters can reach land and sea, and they can deadzone territories from a range of 3 (vs 2 for subs). On naval defense, a mixed force of subs, fighters, and carriers does better than a stack of any single unit. This is because fighter/carrier has a higher defense/IPC ratio while subs have a higher hit/IPC ratio.

Japan fighter pressure on land:
Japan’s fighter threat on India is the main goal of Japan fighter purchases, besides naval defense.

Ok, makes sense that Paris is an unattractive target for Germany.

It seems pretty clear from your comments that you believe Russia falls quickly against optimal play. By my evaluation, Russia should be able to stack Ukraine for a while, despite heavy Aus & Ger pressure.

Overall, I don’t see the immediate pressure to force an early Russia collapse.
1. Russia starts with ~48 land units, Aus with 60, and Germany with ~88.
2a. Russia doesn’t have any external obligations and can commit everything to defense.
2b. Austria needs to commit 15-25 units to balkans and italy. I can see substituting germany for some Aus units in holding off italy.
2c. Germany needs to commit 20-40 units (wide range reflects my uncertainty) holding vs France.

What I see is Russia, Austria, and Germany with comparable sized uncommitted armies at the start. Axis produces more than Russia, so I expect the Russia position deteriorates over time. Russia’s supply line is 1 space while Aus and Ger is 2-3 spaces. Ukraine is the main contested territory. I can see a Russia collapse if one Axis power is able to catch a portion of the Russia army and the other Axis power follows through; however, I don’t think this would be easy against an experienced allied player.

I’d appreciate more specifics on how optimal play for Austria, Germany, and Russia looks like with Axis commitment to pressure Russia. Again, my views are from one actual game and deep experience with general A&A mechanics. I’m sure someone with more specific map experience can add something.